If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Climate Change Climate Change

The Climate Change Climate Change

The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

Terry Britton, P.E.

Engineers believe that if it isn't broken, it doesn't have enough features yet.

In the most recent report on climate change from the xxx, the primary conclusion is:

"1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)"

The most recent report is available at http://www.globalchange.gov. It was released June 16, 2009 and provides a rather thorough summary of both the evidence supporting the existence of global warming that is primarily human induced and a detailed assessment of the impacts expected in the US. While I tend to be a fairly voracious reader and a skeptic about almost everything, I cannot independently evaluate all of the evidence on global climate change. However, my BS alarms go off in full force when I read the challenges to the science generated with great regularity.

As has been demonstrated in prior threads, this forum does little to promote scientific discussion in the face of ideological and religious commitments. Personally, I tend to believe that the burden of proof of safety rests with those engaging in activities that significantly change our environment, not with those seeking to minimize those impacts. It is clear that human activity is dramatically changing aspects of our atmosphere. Show me the proof that those changes have no negative consequences.

In the most recent report on climate change from the xxx, the primary conclusion is:

"1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)"

The most recent report is available at http://www.globalchange.gov. It was released June 16, 2009 and provides a rather thorough summary of both the evidence supporting the existence of global warming that is primarily human induced and a detailed assessment of the impacts expected in the US. While I tend to be a fairly voracious reader and a skeptic about almost everything, I cannot independently evaluate all of the evidence on global climate change. However, my BS alarms go off in full force when I read the challenges to the science generated with great regularity.

As has been demonstrated in prior threads, this forum does little to promote scientific discussion in the face of ideological and religious commitments. Personally, I tend to believe that the burden of proof of safety rests with those engaging in activities that significantly change our environment, not with those seeking to minimize those impacts. It is clear that human activity is dramatically changing aspects of our atmosphere. Show me the proof that those changes have no negative consequences.

Especially when too many scientists to name have recanted their previous claims and now affirm that global climate change is REAL, and the result of human activity. (Michael Crichton, the science-fiction writer notwithstanding) I was really disappointed to hear officials in the prior administration report that their scientific panels' reports to the president were "cleared" and revised by the W.H. policy advisors who have no science background whatsoever.

I am afraid however, that things haven't changed as much as I'd hoped they would. I fear that Obama has been read the lobbyists set of rules, and is realizing that he must play. Energy production, food production, and information technology have come to be controlled by an alarmingly few sets of entities, who all stand to profit from the current system they've devised. Don't look for change...at least not soon.

...Show me the proof that those changes have no negative consequences.

Show me proof that it does...

Hopefully whatever report you deem to cite will not be peppered with might, should, expected to, probably, if, etc. I hope that report considers the fact that man and beast live on the planet and there is waste involved with that activity and it includes cow farts and the like in its analysis. I hope it doesn't rely on models that donít include atmospheric moisture as the most prominent green house gas. I hope it considers that the changes in CO2 could be/is a trailing indicator to climate change. I hope it cites all CO2 sources. I hope it looks at the possibility that increased sun activity could be the entire story.I expect the status quo of normal weather patterns are the cause of any weather related activity and there is a preponderance of evidence that can be explained in more than one way which in my way of thinking isnít a proof.

subroc

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In the most recent report on climate change from the xxx, the primary conclusion is:

"1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)"

The most recent report is available at http://www.globalchange.gov. It was released June 16, 2009 and provides a rather thorough summary of both the evidence supporting the existence of global warming that is primarily human induced and a detailed assessment of the impacts expected in the US. While I tend to be a fairly voracious reader and a skeptic about almost everything, I cannot independently evaluate all of the evidence on global climate change. However, my BS alarms go off in full force when I read the challenges to the science generated with great regularity.

As has been demonstrated in prior threads, this forum does little to promote scientific discussion in the face of ideological and religious commitments. Personally, I tend to believe that the burden of proof of safety rests with those engaging in activities that significantly change our environment, not with those seeking to minimize those impacts. It is clear that human activity is dramatically changing aspects of our atmosphere. Show me the proof that those changes have no negative consequences.

The manmade global warming crowd does little to promote actual scientific analysis by tainting data such as adjusting, moving, or placing sensors so that heat will increase or be much higher (south side of buildings near asphalt). They leave out full analysis such as the changing of earth's orbit over time, and other external radiations. They ignore the many glaciers that are growing, and the major significance that under water volcanoes have. They ignore places where the sea levels are going down rather than increasing as their models state they should. It is a big money grab and political push.

You are buying into unethical marketing.

Do you realize the start of the global warming craze was concocted to end coal mining strikes in the UK, and to help push nuclear plants in the UK so that the miners union would have less power?

No, if you want to argue about Peak Oil, yes we are on the downward swing and need to implement solutions. I have a pretty in depth paper on Peak Oil, and justifications on alternatives.

We shouldn't be conned on why we need better technologies to replace oil under the guise of manmade global warming and the cap and trade taxes which will do the opposite of their intentions while other countries will become worse at using up resources.

Last edited by Terry Britton; 06-26-2009 at 09:51 PM.

Terry Britton, P.E.

Engineers believe that if it isn't broken, it doesn't have enough features yet.

The manmade global warming crowd does little to promote actual scientific analysis by tainting data such as adjusting, moving, or placing sensors so that heat will increase or be much higher (south side of buildings near asphalt). They leave out full analysis such as the changing of earth's orbit over time, and other external radiations. They ignore the many glaciers that are growing, and the major significance that under water volcanoes have. They ignore places where the sea levels are going down rather than increasing as their models state they should. It is a big money grab and political push.

You are buying into unethical marketing.

Do you realize the start of the global warming craze was concocted to end coal mining strikes in the UK, and to help push nuclear plants in the UK so that the miners union would have less power?

No, if you want to argue about Peak Oil, yes we are on the downward swing and need to implement solutions. I have a pretty in depth paper on Peak Oil, and justifications on alternatives.

We shouldn't be conned on why we need better technologies to replace oil under the guise of manmade global warming and the cap and trade taxes which will do the opposite of their intentions while other countries will become worse at using up resources.

Actually, a great deal of effort goes into trying to correct for issues such as routine waste production, measurement error, etc. Unfortunately, the rate of change in the concentration of greenhouse gasses is accelerating, not slowing down, with dramatic increases in just the last 30-40 years. More recent evidence suggests that the earth's natural defenses are becoming overwhelmed so that a higher and higher percentage of the gasses passed into the atmosphere is failing to be absorbed naturally. This is creating some exponentiation in the rate of greenhouse gas concentration.

The scientific research must continue both to help us better understand and address the extent, causes and mitigation of climate change and to address approaches for adapting to the changes that now appear inevitable. It has been clear for decades that our environment has a finite capacity for supporting human activity. In the 19th century, air pollution was worse in Europe than it is today. It has improved both because of improved technologies and tighter regulation.

In this country, air pollution in cities has long been known to have serious health impacts costing billions of dollars every year. That too has improved through a combination of regulation and technology improvements. Parts of our rivers that were dead or dying under the onslaught of industrial wastes are now being revived because of regulations forcing cleanup. Some businesses were unable to make the required changes and disappeared. Other businesses replaced them and the economy grew. The river two blocks from my house once again has fish, even if they should not be eaten more than a couple of times per month.

Cities and towns along the north eastern seaboard dumped their raw sewage into the ocean for centuries. When the costs of burying their garbage became too high, they began to dump that garbage into the ocean. Who could ever fill such an infinite and self cleaning resource? Unfortunately, the answer was us, and we did. Beaches had to be shut down and the concentration of ecoli hit hazardous levels. Despite the beliefs of some scientists that the ocean could effectively handle large quantities of garbage dumping, they were wrong. Massive areas of death grew off the shores of New York, New Jersey, and Long Island. But nothing was done until this garbage finally began to float up on the beaches, forcing their closure and leading to regulatory prohibitions on ocean dumping. In the Gulf of Mexico, the problem of fertilizer poisonng of the ocean remains a serious problem with a 7000 square mile area of death that blossoms each summer.

We have known for years that our rate of consumption of some natural resources -- principally fossil fuels -- was not sustainable indefinitely. While the market price of fuel covered the costs of extraction, refinement and distribution, it does not cover the costs of replacement. In economic terms, that means the free market has encouraged over consumption. Regulations and taxes have helped, but not enough. The need for reducing fossil fuel usage now is justified both for conservation and protection of the atmosphere. As with the ocean, we have proven that the atmosphere is also capable of being used up by the activities of man. The free market will not protect the atmosphere any more than it protected our rivers because there is no one responsible for paying for the damages caused to all of us. As a consequence, regulation is needed. The form of that regulation is a reasonable matter for debate. That the market underprices the value of irreplaceable resources and underprices the cost of damaging the environment is simply a statement of fact.

The fall of man in the garden after rebelling against God brought about sin (which brought as its penalty death, disease, thorns, etc.). Sin brought about degradation in the human race as well as the animal kingdom. That degradation brought about God's judgement on mankind in the form of the flood (a global flood not a local flood).

The flood radically changed this world. Before the flood the Earth was pure; and God called His creation good! No disease, no death, no harmful rays from the sun (the Earth actually was protected by a layer of water in the atmosphere...in fact, there was no rain prior to the flood...the water protected the Earth). Man lived life upwards of 900 years. After the flood the life expectancy is less than 100 years. So, in light of the events that came about as a result of man's sinful rebellion against God then I agree that the problematic events we see in terms of "climate change" are totally man made.

We have known for years that our rate of consumption of some natural resources -- principally fossil fuels -- was not sustainable indefinitely.

Kinda flies in the face of "millions of years" theories does it not?

.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1 NKJV)... 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4NKJV)

The fall of man in the garden after rebelling against God brought about sin (which brought as its penalty death, disease, thorns, etc.). Sin brought about degradation in the human race as well as the animal kingdom. That degradation brought about God's judgement on mankind in the form of the flood (a global flood not a local flood).

The flood radically changed this world. Before the flood the Earth was pure; and God called His creation good! No disease, no death, no harmful rays from the sun (the Earth actually was protected by a layer of water in the atmosphere...in fact, there was no rain prior to the flood...the water protected the Earth). Man lived life upwards of 900 years. After the flood the life expectancy is less than 100 years. So, in light of the events that came about as a result of man's sinful rebellion against God then I agree that the problematic events we see in terms of "climate change" are totally man made.

.

So forget the scientific arguments pro and con. Climate change is the result of a lack of faith.

One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

Remember that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas contributing 72% of the greenhouse effect, and that we as humans breath out 100% water saturated air at 98.6 degrees with each breath.

The gases that the ones that want to control us with are minor players in the greenhouse effect.

Making water illegal would go much farther in reducing any greenhouse effects. Maybe draining all ponds completely so that there is less water surface to feed water vapor formation that creates any greenhouse effect would be much more effective than trying to control minor gasses which would have no effect in trying to balance out the additional energy gained from our cyclical orbit or from all of the active volcano regions under our oceans that have been active in the past 15 years.

As far as the garbage, it should be converted into fuel grade ethanol via gasification method or bio-diesel via he turkey cooker method.

Terry Britton, P.E.

Engineers believe that if it isn't broken, it doesn't have enough features yet.